Some debate #2 Politi-talk.

So I promised some politi-talk, which I haven't come through on yet. At Kristin's request and to vent my frustration watching tonights debate, here are a few words. I'm watching the CBS newsfeed because for the 1st debate, both candidates were always on frame. There was an annoying billowing flag between them, but I want to watch John McCain's eyebrows arch and the vein on his forehead pop, so I'm sticking with them. My other reason for chosing CBS, is I've decided (after my Sarah Palin rant) that I have a responsibility to support women who have achieved success on their merits. While I've never been a fan of The Today Show, Katie Courick does fit that description.

I won't keep a time-linear commentary, I'll skip around to try to keep themes the same, but I'm sure this wil come out kind of scattered. Many topics will be broached tonight, and I've got to vent.

I'm looking forward to John McCain agreeing profusely with Barack's answers. What Obama's got going has worked for him. McCain is already trying to co-opt the themes of change, reform, and the state of the economy being not so strong. Since when can the encumbent party, and a campaign platform that agrees vehemently with the failed policies of the current administration be the agent of reform? (Maybe they should get themselves one of those little people, even smaller than the other guy's.) Oh, there's one--taxes. Keep the tax code as it is (does that mean keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? I'll bet it does.) and give the middle class a tax cut by doubling the tax break for having a kid.

Ahh. There's that familiar inch thick billowing flag, but they're being a bit stingy with it tonight.

Here comes a topic of conversation. Mr. McCain's suspension of his campaign in order to solve the bailout, er, I meant to say "rescue". Apparently it took him a full 22 hours to get his private jet from NYC to Washington, making stops with Katie Courick (to try to diffuse some of Mrs. Palin's shocking display of inadequacy), a fundraiser, a hotel stay, and finally arriving at Washington late in the afternoon after Congress had come to an agreement. In the meeting he convened, he had nothing to say, and the key players walked out no longer in agreement. He did cancel his visit to Dave Letterman--now that's sacrifice. Calling off campaigns to attend to something urgent has been a historical theme for the campaigning John McCain. Remember the hurricane last month during the Republican convention? The convention was called off Monday (convenient to keep the wildly unpopular president off the premises), the press went to Louisiana, but the Republicans partied like it was 1999 (or January 2001). I learned that John McCain has a history of calling off campaigns when the going gets tough, he's been doing for years. Is that what we want in a President? Someone who ready to call a time-out whenever the going gets tough?

Oh, by the way. Fannie & Freddie weren't the perpetrators of predatory loans, that was mostly unregulated private enterprise at work.

Does John McCain know how long it takes to get a productive new domestic oil well or build a nuclear power plant? It's decades. That's the same time frame (or more) necessary to get clean, carbon neutral, domestic renewable energy sources on line at significant levels. Thirty years of the drill and mine and war mentality of gaining energy indepence has gotten us more and more dependent on an energy supply provided by cartels. Ripping the solar panels off the White House roof in 1980 may've been a great publicity stunt, but it didn't help the nation's energy dependence one whit. I appreciate Barack Obama's commitment to reduce the CO2 emissions of this country drastically, quickly, and to levels that even me, the environmentalist, was surprised to hear. (Don't get me wrong, I believe its possible, but I'm a realist--I don't expect my government to make big steps.) Investing billions in renewable energy like a 21th century New Deal is the path to real energy independence. As a bonus, its an investment in our country's infrastructure, technology, and business. Innovation is the way to ensure the US economy is strong. Investing in the old way of doing things will keep us in the dark ages and in short time, allow the rest of the world to surpass the US. Investing in technology and innovation will ensure that we have both energy independence, and a strong business community with a desirable, marketable product (you know, like the way Japan has clobbered the US auto industry by making a reliable, fuel efficient, economical fleet of vehicles).

McCain is against defense spending? Someone should let my company's PAC know.

Let's talk about regulation. First, I'll start with my own belief system. I believe that government should regulate corporations on issues of food safety, environmental regulations, worker's rights, public safety, and risk management. As we've seen recently and many times over, when the sole motivator is profit, and the public's well being is at stake, it must be tempered by rules. I also belief that the individual should be de-regulated. If someone makes a decision that affects only that person, its not the government's business. The government has no place in the consenting bedroom. the government has no ability to regulate an individuals substance use, it doesn't work (of course operation of a vehicle under the influence of any substance, legal or otherwise, absolutely must be regulated). A bunch of old white guys has absolutely no business deciding which medical procedures young women should have access to.

John McCain has a 26 year record (except for the last 2 weeks) of eliminating regulation on corporations whenever possible. That's a policy that has gotten us an economic stock market, credit market, and housing meltdown. Deregulation has resulted in precipitous increases in energy prices, still cripling those of us who's state's deregulated, and at the extreme resulted in the pillaging of California's electricity budget and ultimate collapse of Enron.

We are dependent on government regulations (and appropriate enforcement) to ensure the safety of food, pharmaceuticals, and consumer products. Regulations should be keeping melamine out of baby formula and lead out of their toys. Regulations give us a 40 hour workweek in a safe work environment. Regulations give us confidence that our insurance company will come through when our car or our health fail. Regulations have taken us from a nation where our rivers were so pulluted that some of them caught fire, to a nation where we have parks on the riverbanks and feel safe taking a kayak out (Next step is mercury and PCB free fishing!!).

I will give John McCain credit for his position on earmarks. I haven't seen a challenge to his claim of not taking any for Arizona during his tenure in the senate. That is a good thing. I believe that the congress has a responsibility to act in the best interest of the nation. Re-election hinges on pandering to the constituents back home, and for much of the congress, the secondary requirement has been priority 1. Earmarks have been abused to fund pet projects back home for many representatives. The biggest example of this is Alaska, with the aptly named "Bridge to Nowhere" (Yup, Sara Palin campaigned on that and still took the money for other highway projects, plus funding for another bridge to Nowhere Wasilla, AK). This is one McCain idea that Barack Obama has co-opted, and while he didn't claim an egregious amount of money to send back home, he has pledged to stop requesting specific funds for IL projects.

Diplomacy. Barack Obama has been a proponent of diplomacy with all countries regardless of their standing in the international community. John McCain wants to follow the lead of Bush/Cheney policy and shoot first, never bothering to ask questions. I believe in diplomacy. I'll use China as an example. It's an old style communist country with a long history of oppressing their people. We've chosen to chastise the policies we disagree with, but embrace China as a trade partner (maybe we'll put some regulations into that agreement someday and ask for worker's rights or consumer and environmental protections). Having China has a trade partner has given us access to cheap goods, and has given the people of China access to our culture, consumerism, and democracy. They get it in a censored form, but they still get it. As a result, China is making steps toward personal freedoms and has become a player on the international stage. In contrast, Iran is a country the US currently refuses to talk to, and has been threatening for the last 6 1/2 years. It is led by a theocracy and a prime minister that spews vile, threatening, nonsense. The young people of Iran on the otherhand are largely educated and hungry for freedom. I believe we should foster their desire. Issueing our own threats and refusing to engage Iran, while we burden the country with sanctions (restricting access to cheap Chinese goods, media, and food) will not serve our country well in the future. Leaving a vacuum of positive idealogy in Iran helps foster extremism and ultimately terrorism.

Some thoughts on the follow-up analysis.

I don't understand what the press calls "Scoring the debate". Apparently, its about quick soundbites, not about 1-addressing the actual question that was asked, 2-educating the voters on the campaign platford 3-honesty. You win or lose on a one-liner that might be delivered by someone like the Govern-ator himself. I just don't get it.

Who is this lady in with the "I can't say who had the better plan, but I firmly believe its every American's right to health care, and the children, and blah blah blah" Was she listening at all? The question was more than answered tonight.

Token black Republican. 'Nuf said.